Why Obama Will Never Be Lincoln or King

Watching the movie Lincoln, I thought there were some similarities between President Abraham Lincoln and President Barack Obama. Both men were popular during their times. During the film, Mary Todd Lincoln pleads with her husband not to squander his popularity with the American people by forcing Congress to pass the 13th amendment ending slavery as the Civil War was already coming to an end.

“No one’s ever been loved so much by the people. Don’t waste that power,” Mary Todd played exceptionally by Sally Fields tells her husband. But Lincoln, portrayed forcefully by Daniel Day Lewis, looked at his wife as if to say “the future of America is more important than my popularity.” In that moment, it was clear to me Obama is no Lincoln nor will he ever be as great a president as Abe because Obama always puts his personal popularity above the good of the country.

Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward, tells the president, “It’s either the amendment or this Confederacy peace, you cannot have both.” But Lincoln did have both and risked being disliked as president to ensure not only slaves/blacks gained freedom in the United States Constitution but all men. The president knew the Emancipation Proclamation he declared using his war powers would be null and void when the war ended because freedom for all men wasn’t in the Constitution.

As the Union Army had all but vanquished the Confederacy in 1865, Lincoln ultimately got Congress to pass the 13th amendment by personally lobbying bigoted Democrat Confederates and getting some to vote in favor of ending slavery. Instead of engaging in a war of words, Lincoln personally engaged in the process.

What issue of great importance has Obama sacrificed his personal popularity? The debt ceiling, Obamacare, fiscal cliff, immigration, gun control, Benghazi? From day one of his first term, Obama showed nothing but public contempt for Republicans in every battle and having his way regardless of the impact on the country.

Unlike Lincoln, whom Obama says he admires, Obama hasn’t shown any interest in building relationships with Republicans, which was evidenced early on when no Republicans voted Obamacare. Nor did any House Republicans vote for Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package. Only three Republican Senators voted for the stimulus.

Throughout his 1st term Obama was effective in portraying Republicans has politicians only concerned about the rich. The problem with this strategy is it doesn’t inspire the opposing party to work with you.  From the recent fiscal cliff battle to 2011 debt ceiling talks, Obama seems to relish humiliating his opponents for personal approval ratings more than working with them to fix the country’s problems.

One particularly awful moment came April 13, 2011 at George Washington University.  Obama invited some of the Republican leadership, including Rep. Paul Ryan, architect of the House budget plan, to his debt reduction speech at the university. Keep in mind bipartisan discussions on dealing with the country’s debt ceiling were occurring at the White House and on Capital Hill.

Instead of praising Republicans for at least putting forth a plan, Obama excoriated Ryan’s plan as bad for America. Obama said it “ends Medicare as we know it” and that “children with autism or Down syndrome,” along with the poor and grandparents would lose Medicaid coverage, (p.104 The Price of Politics).

I will give President and candidate Obama credit, he does a brilliant job of selling America on the Obama brand: an educated black man, full of personality with a great family. Senator Harry Reid observed in 2007 that Obama could be president because he was “a light-skinned” black with “no Negro dialect,” (p.36 Game Change). Americans and the mainstream media loved the Obama to the point they were willing to dismiss his lousy record every time in favor of his uniqueness and charm as the country’s first black president.

During the campaign, he and his Democrat surrogates demonized Republican candidate Mitt Romney, effectively distracting voters from the issues of a bad economy and mounting debt to topics like the war on women, birth control, gay marriage, Romney’s wealth and his taxes. Despite presiding over one of the worst economies since the Great Depression in his first term, where  unemployment was stuck mostly above 8%, Obama beat the odds and won re-election. No president except Franklin D. Roosevelt won reelection when unemployment was higher than 7%.

As Obama embarks upon his second term, he seems intent on using the same tactics of demonizing Republicans as he did in his first. In remarks on gun violence January 16, 2012, days before his inauguration, Obama said, “while reducing gun violence is a complicated challenge, protecting our children from harm shouldn’t be a divisive one.” Because Republicans and some Democrats support the 2nd amendment and have different views on gun laws doesn’t mean they are evil.

Obama will place his hand on bibles from both Martin Luther King Jr. and Lincoln for his public swearing in January 21st,  also the King Holiday. Using these bibles flies in the face of what both men embodied, freedom. Under Obama’s administration Americans have become more dependent upon government, enslaved to it, rather than free from it because of his policies. Nearly 50% of all Americans receive some form of  government benefit.

King and Lincoln were killed for bringing freedom and equality to all men. In his 1963 I Have A Dream speech, King referenced Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation yet declared: “But 100 years later, the Negro is not free.” Blacks weren’t free because they were enslaved in an American society of segregation that cut them off from opportunity to access the same rights: education, jobs, housing, etc. as whites.

Despite what some black liberals say, Obama needs to do more than be the first black president to honor King’s legacy. I think King would be appalled by Obama’s economy and how his policies have harmed black Americans with higher than average unemployment at 14%, 25% of blacks living in poverty, and 73% of black babies today a born to single moms. This isn’t the Dream King envisioned.

Obama is no Lincoln or King because he lacks magnanimity. Great men take responsibility for their actions. They don’t blame others for their inability to achieve great things. They just do it.

If you enjoyed this article, Get email updates (It’s Free)

49 Responses to “Why Obama Will Never Be Lincoln or King”

  1. 1ConservativeUSA says:

    Lack of magnanimity, sure, but Obama can’t even be compared to the feeble Jimmy Carter. While both men’s policies were similar and wrong headed, at least Carter believed in country over his own legacy.

  2. Scott says:

    @Wes
    #1 Free enterprise has many problems and only works well when there are comparable competitors. Two grocery stores in town works a lot better than one. The competition keeps the stores honest.

    My quote is a fairly oft repeated one. Free Enterprise has many problems but fewer than any other system.

    #2 Slavery and post civil war repression of minorities including blacks was horrible (to put it mildly). But the civil war was about the states rights. Lincoln happened upon the great propaganda line of freeing blacks. That rallied the North.

    The constitution states that all states must honor contracts from other states. (Article 4 – Full Faith) Marriage is a contract.

    #3 I agree 100% that parents are first in line. But the schools and public system now are so overwhelming in their belief control, that it is difficult to cope. They do seem to teach that all misbehavior is a result of “psychological problems” and indeed that seems to says that one is not responsible for his behavior. Pretty scary.

    #4 Medicine. I threw out a premise. Modifying the parameters of the service sold could, emphasize could, change the motivation. As a retired DVM, I KNOW some veterinarians were paid on commission. The owners did not like the slow pace at which they practiced. A friend recently retired as a pediatrician, when he was criticized for lack of “production.” Putting the government in charge will not work as long as commission is the payment model.

    Cancer or any other single issue, would need to be worked out. There is a good bit of evidence that lifestyle contributes to cancer. Think smoking.

    #5 What to do: I am going to a local Republican meeting. I was invited by a friend who is a Libertarian. You sound like a conservative. Perhaps looking at the ramifications of some policies would convince you one way or the other. You and I need to speak up so we can be heard.

    Why not read “Atlas Shrugged” for what Ayn Rand intended? She was commenting on the effect of crippling bureaucratic control with short sighted rules. She took things to their logical extreme.

    People forget she was a teenager during the Russian Revolution and saw the effects of collectivism. Her heroes are stilted and one dimensional and she does not offer a vision of ideal government, but her vision of the results of poor government is pretty eerie.

    See you in the next topic – or perhaps at a meeting…

  3. Wes says:

    @ scott
    First: I’m not sure I understand your point. It sounds like you are saying free enterprise is only as good as the people who use it. Please clarify.
    Second: Small community government is the brilliance of confederation. I know I’m always moaning about the constitution and bill of rights, but at the risk of sounding hypocritical, history paints an ugly picture. Can you say emancipation in 1865 and civil rights in 1965? The nation is just a bit over 200 years old. Fighting for states rights will be “tricky” for me. Having abortion legal in some states wouldn’t be so unmanageable. However having gay marriage legal in some states and outlawed in others sounds like a real problem to me.

    I agree that raising up moral and ethical agents is critical to the society wanting liberty and freedom. However I do not agree that the school system is best method to achieve this end. Parents so focused on making a living (or not focused on anything constructive for that matter) are raising monsters. Prisons are overflowing and I am not convinced this is the failure of the school system. I agree the school systems are failing, but part of that problem is that the students don’t want to learn and the parents of those children often don’t care whether or not they learn.

    Third: An outcome based medical system is intriguing, but is it feasible? Obviously the drug companies aren’t lobbying Congress for this end. If we were lucky enough to elect a statesmen to the presidency, he’ll go marching into Washington and run into that wall. “What if the Dr were only paid if you were healthy, with a deduction for each drug you used, and a bigger one if you got cancer?” I don’t understand what you mean here about cancer. Cancer cures seem more likely the earlier the cancer is detected. At what point do we ship the stage fours off to the hospice? When there is little to no hope or when the costs don’t justify the effort?

    I think the dems and reps parties are too far gone in order to fix them from within. People are being elected to Congress and when they arrive in Washington instead of representing their constituency, they are being told to go sit in a corner someplace while the “leaders” work out a deal. With one or two companies buying up all the radio stations, it sorta says something about what we can expect to hear on the air.

  4. Scott says:

    @Wes Very interesting summary of the way things are. I agree with most of your premises; however, disagree with the some conclusions.

    First: free enterprise is a horrible system, but it is better than any other we know. Scale seems to matter with the amount of integrity shown.

    Second: we need morality. I think that comes from small community. This country is just too big for a sense of commonness with the guy in the state on the other coast, etc. Unfortunately, I think we need regulations to substitute for that. We should allow people in smaller jursidictions make their own rules. I think that is called States Rights and Article 9 of the Constitution.

    But I also think our schools should teach an absolute morality – as they used to do. There is no shame in our country. Judeo-Christian is good to a point. I think most of Islam agrees with the basics, but am not knowledgeable enough to argue that. I feel the Messiah is really a libertarian, with understanding that some people need help. Quite a combo, isn’t it?

    Third: I don’t want the government in charge of my health. I would love to see physicians charged with improving health not keeping you alive on drugs. Again morality. What if the Dr were only paid if you were healthy, with a deduction for each drug you used, and a bigger one if you got cancer?

    Libertarians want most of these things. Unfortunately they don’t sell themselves well. They focus on the leave me alone, not the benefits of independent action and the fact that the vast majority of people would be more successful if not controlled by government.

    There is a role for government. It should help people who are down and out, but it should not be limited to keeping them alive, it should include helping them get on their feet.

    How to get active? Take over the Republican party again? Get inside the Democratic party? Maybe contact our “news” organizations and ask them to present an honest dialogue about our problems and handling them in a moral fashion.

    I have started expressing my opinions in this blog and on my Facebook page. I do email the major network programs (to no known avail, but I do it.) I read you as a human who wants freedom and sees some of the dangers in our system. We have a lot in common. What is the next step?

  5. Wes says:

    @ Rebecca
    I just noticed your note. I think I would like to start working toward something like this (getting involved with a political party that is). I prefer this route as opposed to more radical approaches and I am worried that the window of opportunity may be closing.

    So far, I don’t feel I have much in common with others politically. My choices are leaning toward what I think the Messiah would do should He choose to become an activist. That would be knowing right from wrong without being too judgmental. Also it would be caring about others and treating others as I would like to be treated. I believe capitalism is the best economic system because socialism will collapse under its own weight. However I don’t believe in deregulation because without controls, all of the wealth will end up in the hands of a few and the have nots will revolt. Also, I don’t believe in supply side myths. When Clinton was preparing to sell out his country in 1994, I travelled to Washington for a rally opposing the passing of the GATT treaty. Given the gravity of what was about to occur, the turnout was pathetic. Anyway, Alan Keyes was there and spoke to the “crowd”. Over the years he has made me upset on occasion, but overall, I like him.

    I believe in the separation of church and state. From the spiritual perspective, I believe a theocracy would be the best system. However I am a student of history and history tells me that religious leaders cannot always be trusted to act in the congregation’s best interest. Until we can confirm the shaman is not a charlatan I have to place trust in the secular.

    One more thing. Some things must be left to the government. Nobody in the country can afford to get hospitalized except the very wealthy. That means somebody besides the doctor and the patient have to get involved in what kinds of treatments are performed. As you may already know, I don’t trust the government as much as the next person, but given the choice between the government and some businessman looking at a balance sheet and a bottom line, well let’s just say the “compassionate” businessman probably filed for bankrupcy and had to turn my case over to the shrewed businessman and I just became expendable.

  6. Wes says:

    @scott
    #2 I agree preventive medicine is a great way to help drive down healthcare costs. Unfortunately the is no way to prevent people from getting older short of euthanasia. Medicare is the 800 pound gorilla and the people who lobby Congress have found a way to profit from that through Obamacare (not to imply they weren’t profiting before Obamacare).
    #1 I’m not sure I can comprehend, or even apprehend what you mean by “caring conservative”. I try to use labels as little as possible. If you see yourself as an American and I declare myself as an American you may presume me to be your brother. On the other hand, if I declare myself black or liberal you may presume I am competing with you.

    You acknowledged that the media is a huge problem. You stated multiple times that republicans aren’t the answer. You asserted that people argue over bogus issues. In light of this, I think we AGREE that we need to stick together as Americans. We cannot afford to have MSNBC and Fox News divide us as the white and the black; the young and the old; the rich and the poor and MOST IMPORTANTLY the left and the right. Why? Because if we owe China trillions, guess who else is lobbying our Congress? I prefer not arguing over minutia when the constitution (which protects our rights) is under threat because too much is at stake.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F584p5kJL-U

    The tricky part is that it is constitutionally legal to lobby Congress, I think

    As far as the Hillary thing is concerned, she said she took responsibility and subsequently implied it wasn’t her fault. I guess she’s been taking lessons from her husband. After all, it all matters what the definition of the word “is” is.

  7. Scott says:

    @Wes #2 I think a better approach would have been to reform the goals of medical care. Right now the goals are to control disease processes. The goal should be to prevent them. There is no reward to a physician to help his patients avoid disease. Look at the diabetes mess for example.

    #1 Once upon a time Goldwater advised the conservatives to get active, the radical religious right did. Someone needs to motivate the Caring Conservative, non-Judgmental right to get active.

    I looked at the Tea Party. They are just so short sighted, so I really don’t have an answer other than honest debate. I think that is being short circuited by the media. Look at the next blog: Hillary is glorified for basically saying: “Hey 4 Americans died, what difference does it make how they died?” or “Why do you want to blame me for my oversight?” How can there be honest debate with that being approved?

  8. [...] Crystal Wright:  Why Obama Will Never be Lincoln or King – Obama is no Lincoln or King because he lacks magnanimity. Great men take responsibility for their actions. They don’t blame others for their inability to achieve great things. They just do it. [...]

  9. Wes says:

    @Scott
    Regarding #1 If you don’t like dems or reps, do you have any good ideas about getting a third party in the whitehouse? First we have to get them into the debates. I can’t join the tea party – its too connected to the Koch bro – which means big business – which means it is the defacto government … I think

  10. Wes says:

    @Scott
    #2 We may be speaking different languages. If Obama says we need public health care and the republicans say no we don’t, if we get it Obama wins. If we don’t the reps win. If we wind up with something in between public health care and no public health care, I call that a compromise.

    #3 As long as you agree global government is bad then I feel we are mostly on the same page. If you can convince me that having our workforce competing for jobs with these slave labor countries will benefit us in the long run, we will be in agreement. Cuz in the short term it appears to be whooping our behinds.

  11. Scott says:

    @wes
    #1 I agree the Republicans are as bad as the Demos; I thought I have said that multiple times.
    #2 If Obamacare is a compromise, we are speaking different languages.
    #3 Global trade is good, global government would be the worst possible thing. Don’t confuse them.

  12. Wes says:

    @ Scott If you prefer to talk about the way things APPEAR, then this is what I see. Since CBC feels it is relevant to compare Obama to Lincoln (arguably the greatest president in the history of the republic), I’d like to rank all the recent presidents going back to Carter. The list goes from best to worst. Please keep in mind that since I blame much of the economic turmoil on Reaganomics, it should go without saying that I am not that happy with any of them:
    Reagan
    HW Bush
    Obama
    Carter
    Clinton
    W Bush

    Since you stated a week or two ago that we spend time arguing over “bogus” issues, I think it is pertinent to say that the media has the electorate hypnotized into believing we have a viable two party system.

    Here’s a good non sequitur for you. “Let’s just replace these bought and paid for guys with these bought and paid for guys and we can turn this thing around.”
    {sheesh}

  13. Wes says:

    @Scott You say it may all be in the view, but I beg to differ. I do not think this is about how things look. I think it is about how things ARE. People on this site are focused on what Bible was used in the inauguration and I am focused on what Obama said during that oath. He promised the American people to defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. What that means to me is when this crazy Congress passes some law that threatens the sixth or the second amendment he will veto it.
    You poopoo this globalization issue like it is a tempest in a teapot while I am declaring myself a nationalist. We don’t have a constitution if we don’t have a nation. Does this sound like a non sequitur? I don’t always express myself well. Anyway whenever Congress passes laws putting us under the jurisdiction of some international tribunal (like the WTO for example), it affects our status as a sovereign nation. Back in the ninties Pat Buchanan ran for president citing a concern for an issue that he called “lost sovereignty”. Unfortunately the electorate was asleep and he lost that election.
    You asked for “ONE compromise” that Obama has done. Well he had this vision or plan that was supposed to solve what he thought was the number one problem plaguing this economy. Well he compromised and compromised until Congress spewed out this monstrosity commonly called Obamacare. Now we have Obamacare AND a healthcare problem.
    Regarding the media lying, when I want to be entertained I watch the news. When I want to be informed I watch CSPAN.

  14. Rebecca says:

    Power works by denying people things. Then when power sees compliance it rewards. The process is in place. Here in OR, 3 yrs ago the Dems passed draconian taxes, based on size of company and paying more and more “GROSS”. That means that you pay your taxes before you pay your EXPENSES! Companies with 100 employees are driven out of business…but Nike, large, run by a liberal Dem, gave large amounts to the DemParty, then came begging, “let me out”. The governor convened the legislature for 1 day and gave Nike a waiver. So now a liberal footlicking Dem company is strengthened, while thousands of nobody companies go under. Millions of one-person companies are unaffected, so everybody goes along, doesn’t even notice why there are so few jobs.

  15. Rebecca says:

    @Wes “The saddest part of all is if George HW had gotten reelected, he no doubt would have done what Clinton did. Only Ross Perot was trying to tell everybody how insane this idea was (notice how you haven’t seen a third party person in the presidential debate since). Now that the jobs are gone, people are still arguing over whether we’d be better off with a dem or a rep in the white house.”

    Process is something that few people who discuss politics understand. I have only a beginner’s understanding, but I encourage the participation. The first step is to become a PCP
    in a party, attend meetings, join discussions, propose things, vote
    be included in the formation of the party platform.

    The reason that it can be shown that Lincoln and the Republicans
    who helped get him elected, had more than a passing desire to eliminate slavery is that it is included in their party platform.

    Go see for yourself what their priorities were. A Party Platform has
    been assembled, point by point, by committees of PCPs who vote on each word, or change. (That’s what happened at the current
    assembly of the DNC, where they voted the word “God” out of the platform in committee, then had a voice-vote on the floor that voted Him out again, only to have the moderator decide they had voted God in to the platform. That’s when they booed, because it was clear the voice vote had voted Him out–but it wasn’t expedient to leadership to let the voice-vote stand, thereby causing a split
    in the party right before the election.)
    To be included in the debates there is a threshold a party must step
    over, in terms of primary results, because the people who put on the debates don’t want to have 15 or 20 people (or more) on the debate floor. After everybody has had their turn to speak, each gets only 1-2 turns and nobody gets to hear a debate of the 2-3 front runners. In every election whoever wants to run, can, but most will never get enough traction to get included in the debates.

    Their HAVE been some people who have been excluded who have had large followings; the one I know of was Alan Keyes. I don’t know why, but it’s possible that despite a lot of traction, he may have fallen just below the cut-off. To my thinking, Alan Keyes
    would have made a wonderful first black president, and I would have supported a 2nd term also. What is important is what kind
    of policies one is supporting.

    Alan Keyes has been very outspoken about his distress with Obama, and none of it has to do with Obama’s color.

    Speaking of process, the case that has worked its way through the courts until the Supreme Court has agreed to take it, is a Democrat
    from Florida who is demanding, under FL law, to have Obama’s
    eligibility to be president examined. Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s 250
    retired law officer deputies have done excellent work on the discovery process, showing how the BC presented on the internet
    failed to have the final step of making it one layer, after it was
    assembled. The nine layers of pieces and parts are still there,
    and many other errors as it was assembled. The fact that Obama
    has used millions of taxpayer dollars to pay lawyers to shut up
    his record, so that all voters have is the manufactured history he
    has made so much of, is unknown to the majority of Americans,
    due to censorship of the media. Obama has never been vetted,
    and the Democrats know that. Feb 15 may lay before the American people the facts of the case, or the judges may crumble.
    We shall see. The most interesting part of the case is that the
    Selective Service card, also manufactured, bears Obama’s signature. The ones making the card didn’t know that in the year
    they created the card for, Obama didn’t even need a card…
    Very interesting case.

  16. Marylou Mawson says:

    Barack 0bama voted against raising the debt ceiling while Geo. W. Bush was President!! He campaigned against irresponsible government spending in ’08. He campaigned as a moderate, who was disgusted at W’s deficit spending and said it was “un-American.” W’s spending resulted in an annual budget deficit of 500 billion per year. 0bama’s spending has resulted in over a trillion dollar deficit (doubling W’s spending) per year. His senate has never even passed a budget in over 4 years! The only budget he submitted to Congress in all this time, did not receive a single vote, not even from his own party! He got through his first term by blaming Bush for the bad economy, which he said he knew how to fix. NONE of his policies have done anything to help the economy despite the passage of 3 stimulus packages. He has devalued the dollar, with “quantitative easing”, which amounts to an across the board tax hike, more than once! Thanks to his policies America’s triple A credit rating has been down-graded, a situation that hasn’t happened in almost 100 years! 48 months of unemployment over 8%. HE is responsible for the many FIRSTS that have taken place since his presidency, and they have all been bad. Get your facts straight!

  17. Scott says:

    @Wes perhaps it is all in the view. GW Bush was totally painted evil by the press and Obama is totally painted saintly. I have personally witnessed the press lying, not distorting, but lying to their audience, on national radio. And not once, but multiple times. And I think they continue to push their point of view, with no evidence that it works.

    Every liberal argument is emotional: no one deserves to be abandoned, no one deserves to be hungry, no one deserves to be without medicine, no one should be called names, no one should…

    Many liberal arguments are one-step: give him money and he will eat today, the FTA happened and I lost my job. He was called a name and now he has no self-confidence.

    Several things are missed: maybe he got handouts all his life and simply never learned to earn it, maybe your job would have been gone even with no FTA, maybe he never was challenged and never accomplished anything to give him self confidence.

    Just because A & B happened at the same time does not mean B caused A or vice-versa.

    I suggest Obama is selling simplistic, emotional, one-step answers while Scapegoating an easy target with the help of the press. I would love someone here to show me ONE example of compromise by this “statesman”.

    And I know the “right” has simplistic answers, too. Everyone seems to ignore that little thing called human nature.

  18. Wes says:

    @ scott When you have people and turnips and you need blood, you have to cut the people because you can’t get blood from a turnip. You can call the tax system whatever you want to call it. In a relatively healthy environment, where the upper third has ten times the wealth of the remaining two thirds, we can have a reasonable debate about who should pay how much tax; but when one percent of the people have ten times the wealth of the other ninty-nine percent, it is more like one man in a bowl with 99 turnips.

    Henry Ford is a classic example of how far hard work can take a man in a free enterprise system as long as the government stays out of the way. As you stated, he worked hard and he paid his workers well. He also worked his workers hard for that generous wage. Some of those workers complained about how hard they worked and true enough, they could have quit and sought other employment, but the bottom line is if each of his workers worked just as hard as Henry and at the end of the day could afford a house, a car and a radio; and Henry could afford 10 mansions, 10 yachts and 10 radio stations then maybe Henry didn’t pay his people as well as advertized.

    I like Henry Ford. He might get my vote for greatest American businessman of all time. In contrast John D Rockefeller is an example of how a man can use power to get more power, legally and without cheating anybody. JD squished a lot of people to get where he got and he is not my favorite American businessman. If the government hadn’t stepped in who knows where we would be today? The internal combustion engine is not the most efficient engine but if you believe everything you hear, the scientists can’t figure out how to make other kinds of engines economically feasible. Think about. Scientists can figure how to launch a probe into space in 1979 that doesn’t show up to Neptune until 1989 but they can’t really figure out a better car engine.

    Yes I do acknowledge that wealth can be created.

    I don’t think there has been a statesman in the whitehouse since Teddy Roosevelt (I could make an argument for Eisenhower and Kennedy but rather not). Without getting too philosophical, a man is really tied to his work. He must see the benefit from his toil or else he becomes disgruntled or maybe even combative. This republic that keeps erroneously getting called a democracy is in disarray and it ain’t because we get a black president. Yes MLK wanted just to be given a fair chance. The first time Congress threatened to not raise the debt ceiling, we had a black president. I’m not saying they did it because he is black. I’m just saying there have been way too many firsts since W left office. CBC looks at this stuff and somehow comes to the conclusion that Obama can’t work with anybody and wants everything his way. He might be tired of bending over backward.

  19. Scott says:

    @Wes We are not so far apart then. I think what you call greed is a willingness to crush other people in the (in my opinion, blind) belief that there is a limited pie. Or frankly, a willingness to cheat and manipulate. I suspect the cheating and manipulation is what makes the average person so mad, no the success itself. I see Obama painting the successful and very rich ALL as cheating and manipulative. Many are, but not all.

    While I don’t think wealth is expanded without limits, I do find it interesting that the great expansion of wealth in this country came after the civil rights movement started re-freeing the blacks. In other words, they came to the table and the pie grew.

    In the case of the water: if all it were only drinking water, then the pie is limited. But what if sharing the water allows agriculture and everyone to prosper?

    Henry Ford paid his workers well so they could shop and make others able to afford his cars. Sort of a pyramid scheme, but it seems to work, as long as people are honest and don’t try to stop other people from success.

    In a word, I think our tax system is manipulated for the Political Class.. I would be in favor of a simple progressive system with no deductions at all. Actually, I think the Fair Tax accomplishes that with some sneaky ability to get the guys in cash only illicit businesses. I do not feel Obama wants a fair system, he advocates a punitive system. Again he is not a statesman!!

  20. Wes says:

    @truevoice I don’t know for sure that the tea party is “white supremacists. However it is curious that Obama “will bankrupt the country” when the country has been bankrupt since 1933
    http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=72117

  21. Wes says:

    @scott I’m not against success. Achievement and reward for excellence helps society grow. The problem is greed can lead to instability. Supply-siders pretend the pie size is unlimited when the truth is that it is closer to a zero sum game. What I mean is guy who has all the water in town might get rich selling it to everybody else. In contrast, the guy who decides to keep all the water for himself might get his head blown off. You don’t want a group of people without hope. MLK understood this. The situation doesn’t have to be about race although it could be. If there is only so much money in the country and one hundred people have so much of it that the rest of us cannot afford spam, there are going to be some riots.

    The only greatness I see in Obama is that he knows how to get elected. Nevertheless, it bothers me when he is treated like Brit Hume treated Juan Williams.

  22. Scott says:

    @Wes too many non-sequitors and too much fuzzy math there for me. I agree 100% there are abuses from big business, big union and big government. I think many of the liberal “answers” just entrench big bureaucracy which stifles everyone and makes free thinking illegal.

    The Republicans steal with one line. The Democrats are lining their pockets with another line and big business laughs all the way. Bust all THREE. Rich bad guys of all stripes just work around silly laws.

    Globalization is happening. People are coming here because it is better here than there, but Americans are also looking elsewhere because of the heavy penalty for success and especially the demonizing of success.

    Again MLK was not against success the way the democratic party is. He just wanted a fair chance at the same success with the same rules for black people. MLK was a great man with a vision. Obama is a mediocre man with his hand out.

  23. Wes says:

    @scott
    Being a victim of a changing world is one thing. Changing the world so the American people become victims is another matter. When one puts 98% of the wealth in 1 % of the hands , the 1% had better make sure the other 99% think the 1% deserve to live like kings while the rest of us fight over the crumbs. I don’t know if the history I learned growing up was true, but I was under the illusion that a multitude of Europeans came to the new world to get away from that crap. Your point seems to be that this is still the land of opportunity. However since the housing bubble burst, more people are finding it difficult to thrive.

    Globalization makes things more similar everywhere. While you may think that is progress, I think it is oppression. Before globalization, if you didn’t like things where you were (and your government wasn’t holding you hostage), you could go to the land of opportunity and seek a better life. Since globalization, the opportunities in the land of opportunity are disappearing. I guess anybody that complains about it is probably one of those 47% that Romney mentioned.

    Tell me I need to make my own way. I can handle that. However don’t tell me it is raining when you are peeing on me. Don’t tell me we need to lower the taxes on the job creators so the job creators can create jobs overseas. Don’t tell me free enterprise is the cat’s meow until the s and l needs bailing out or aig is too big to fail and then all of the sudden socialism is handy. It’s a great system when you can keep all of your profit and the tax payer pays for your losses.

    If the same people who are upset with people sitting around living off the government, get just as upset with the corporate welfare, we might be able to fix some of these budget problems before that fence on the border is used to keep people in instead of keeping people out.

    Unions should not enable workers to not do their jobs and still get paid. However my history tells me that the job creators might be inclined to abuse the workers if the unions don’t step in. I could be wrong. The job creators could be providing a public service to all who are not entrepreneurially gifted enough to go into business for themselves. The job creators may not be driven by numbers on that bottom line to keep wages low. Then again I think that was the whole point of moving that plant overseas. I’m supposed to buy into this supply side balderdash?

  24. Wes says:

    @truevoice
    “Why don’t moderate republicans with a clue get nominated..??? “ I don’t know. Maybe they think moderates are “Rinos” and thereby unfit. After all, a true conservative should drink the koolaid and recite the talking points without thinking.

  25. James says:

    @ Truevoice, you know you will get the right-wing extremist radical christian conservatives stirred up with all this bible talk. Gideon of the bible is said to have had over 70 sons and a countless number of daughters, I doubt very one woman gave him all these children. Just stating facts.

  26. Scott says:

    @bible people No one involved with the Old Testament, AKA Hebrew Bible, thought it was the word of God. It was their discussion of God’s actions and results. Ergo, it is not considered infallible, in spite of what some narrowly read (barely educated) preachers want to tell you.

    I wish you fundamentalists would get your fundamental facts straight.

    I also wish you would get your narrow viewpoints out of political discussions. Go somewhere and wait for the End of the World.

  27. Jeff Diamond says:

    Manipulating emotions and egos alone is the way of every failed tyrant, not of leadership. This article points that out and is why I read ConservativeBlackChick. She has courage. She tells the truth, even if it isn’t “popular”. Now if only there were enough other brave Americans (note: no mention of race) simply brave Americans willing to do and act likewise.

  28. Pam says:

    Truevoice – You didn’t read scripture, either. The Bible records facts – David’s multiple wives, and his sin of murder, but doesn’t endorse his actions. But God makes it pretty clear that “sin is a reproach to any nation.”

  29. Scott says:

    @Kathy @Wes If you ponder a bit, you might realize we are all victims of the changing world. The jobs were leaving no matter who said what. The Free Trade Agreement simply made it possible for us to trade back and more openly cope. The FTA also made many prices here much lower. No one complained about that, though.

    To me ONE problem is that many people do not want to cope with the changing world. When their job skills are made obsolete, they want the government to support them or perhaps their union to protect them.

    Most successful business people have failed multiple times. They get up and try again. They learn. It is hard, but they don’t just ask for government support.

    I am inspired by the exceptional an look at people like Michael Oher. If you read his book (“I Beat the Odds” not the “Blind Side”), you see a story of a boy who just kept figuring out how to do things, turning into a young man determined to succeed.

    Relating back to MLK and Obama: MLK wanted a seat at the table, not a better stack of handouts. Obama just promises more handouts, no opportunity, no hand up to self improvement.

    For all you anti-Republicans out there, I will say: Laisssez-faire may have worked once, but life works better with help and mentors. Republicans need a better and more complete model.

  30. Wes says:

    @ Kathy You sound like someone who can be reasoned with. You feel betrayed by Obama. You are Anglo. I feel betrayed by Clinton who put a proverbial gun to Congress to pass the Uruguay Round of GATT that sent all of the jobs overseas. I am Black.

    I feel like I should not have to say what color I am in order to make a point. However you brought up racism and feel betrayed because the first black president ever, hasn’t adequately addressed the needs of your race. Whereas I feel betrayed because one particular white president sold out the American people. The saddest part of all is if George HW had gotten reelected, he no doubt would have done what Clinton did. Only Ross Perot was trying to tell everybody how insane this idea was (notice how you haven’t seen a third party person in the presidential debate since). Now that the jobs are gone, people are still arguing over whether we’d be better off with a dem or a rep in the white house.

  31. Pam says:

    God given principles – “If a man doth not work, neither shall he eat.” “True religion and undefiled is to take care of widows and orphans.” That’s a paraphrase, and is directed at the individual. Marriage between ONE man, ONE woman. Truth, honor, justice, personal responsibility. Reliance on self, not government.

    BTW – judgement is on this country because of slavery.

  32. Wes says:

    @CBC
    I too saw the movie “Lincoln” and assuming it portrayed Lincoln accurately, Lincoln was a statesmen. MLK was a statesmen. President Obama is a politician. The system we have today says you won’t get elected unless the special interests make it happen.

    You sound like you are unhappy Obama get elected. If I watched one GOP primary debate, I watched ten and the man who won every debate I watched, was never taken seriously by the moderators or the analysts that follow the debates that help us unintelligent ignoramuses figure out what we just witnessed. Then after countless debates, the GOP nominated a plutocratic chameleon. Personally I think the GOP actually helped Obama get reelected. Would we be better off if Romney would have won? With a platform that changed by the hour, I don’t think anybody can answer that truthfully. In that final debate with Obama, Romney sorta reminded me of Neo in the movie “The Matrix” when Neo ran toward agent Smith and literally jumped into his body and became Smith.

  33. JEFF TURNER says:

    @Daren…Will of God? You must be kidding So God is on a politicians side and involves in our politics?. Please stop the name calling, it detracts from your comment.

    @truevoice….Please stop the name calling. You seem better than that.

  34. Scott says:

    @truevoice Holy Cow, we agree. Lincoln was pro federal government and used an emotional issue to propagandize for what he wanted to accomplish. Freeing the slaves was a side effect.

    I suspect Obama wants many good things: I just don’t think his approach works. Too many unintended consequences. I don’t hear a grand vision for us all to achieve more, though his call for social programs to remove risk is close, if controversial. Golly, maybe I am a closet progressive, not a libertarian.

  35. Pam says:

    Re: Will of God. You’re right – our nation is under judgement, otherwise Obama’s lies would NEVER have been believed. I pray everyday that this country returns to the God given principles that made this country great.

  36. Scott says:

    @Daren I just asked some questions. I do not talk to God, nor he/she/IT to me. Does God give these insightful answers to you? or are you using God’s voice to back up your opinions?

    I repeat to anyone here: I am not a Republican, so insulting them does not insult me.

    I was glad to see Obama elected. If you read his book “Audacity of Hope” you get a feeling of a man who understands that we need to work together. I thought he would and that it was worth a chance. Instead we have a man who only seems to believe in handouts for the less able at the expense of the more able. Nowhere in his policies do I see Obama wanting to help people achieve more, to reach for greater things, only to help keep the status quo of poor and less able people voting for him.

    MLK had a vision of people being evaluated for their own worth, but I never felt he just wanted handouts. The movement he led was aimed at getting all people into mainstream America, opening universities to blacks for instance. He was not for a better handout system. He was for equal opportunity, not equal outcome regardless of effort.

    I agree with CBC: Obama is no MLK, not even the same league.

  37. Guardian says:

    Welcome to four more years of lies, hypocrisy, deception and deflection.

  38. A brilliant and brave article.
    You give me hope. As a Anglo person, I feel betrayed by Obama. There was no mention of whites at all in the Inauguration. Every other group was still portrayed as victims. Why assume that the country will be better off when immigrants form a voting majority? Most people vote their own interests, and this will destabilize the country. No one knows what the results will be. We owe it to America’s huge number of unemployed, poor and suffering to deal with them first.
    Racism exists, but it is time to say that anyone can be a victim of it.
    There was such a vacuum in most mainstream commentary on this. you fill the void.

  39. Scott says:

    @Daren
    Then it was the will of God to enslave blacks for hundreds of years?

    Are we giving Him/Her/It credit? or blaming Him/Her/It?

    Is that why my favorite team did not make the Super Bowl?

  40. James says:

    CBC, Tom Joyner did an excellent comparison piece on President Obama and Dr. King, I hope you got a chance to hear it today.

  41. Noel says:

    Well said Pam.

    And well said Crystal: “Obama always puts his personal popularity above the good of the country.”

    The man’s policies are built on sand.
    Or rather they are based on non-concepts like, SOCIAL JUSTICE. The concept of justice relates to lawfulness; the rule of law. Law as in the law of the land; the Constitution.
    Attempts to enforce social justice (a meaningless term) only result in the destruction of all liberty.

    There is a colossal perversion of language perpetrated by these leftists, as they hide behind ambiguous words whilst they smuggle in their evil ideologies. Note the other meaningless term; HUMAN RIGHTS(and oh, the dictators love that one at the United Nations).
    There is only INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Human freedom is based on individual rights.

    And to my knowledge I’ve never ever heard the words “individual rights” come out of Obama’s mouth.

  42. James says:

    President Obama has never compared himself to Lincoln or Dr. King, that is something the radical right wing media agents and other nut cases in the GOP have done very effectively. CBC the GOP would have been better served if it has spent it time, money and energy working with the President to move the country, instead of focusing on placing labels on him (e.g, Obama the Messiah, Uppity Negro, etc) and making trying to make him a one turn President. Do yourself a favor and come up with some original and stop rehashing these old Heritage Foundation, ALEC, and Conservative Citizen Council talking point. Today is great day to be an American, God has blessed us with a truly wonderful President and may God continue to guide him and our nation.

  43. Michael Czindula says:

    When will Black America realize what’s happening to them. They are still enslaved by their own government and do not know it. At the rate of Latino immigration, African-Americans will again be on th bottom of the racial totem pole and are still being taken for granted. They have become sacrificial lambs to the Democrats and will remain so until they listen to the other side and free-think.

  44. Kartman says:

    What Pam said.

  45. JEFF TURNER says:

    True. Good points.

  46. Pam says:

    With his complete incompetence, Obama could not have been elected to his second term (and probably his first) without the collusion of the Mainstream Media. They have foisted the image of this “Great Liberator and Reformer” on to the American public without interest in the truth. Shame on him, shame on the press, and shame on the stupid people who elected him.

  47. [...] Crystal Wright:  Why Obama Will Never be Lincoln or King – Obama is no Lincoln or King because he lacks magnanimity. Great men take responsibility for their actions. They don’t blame others for their inability to achieve great things. They just do it. [...]

  48. Larry says:

    I enjoyed your article. I too have never been able to understand how this current occupant of the Oval Office has remained so popular. The best I can tell is he takes no responsibility for anything, therefore he cannot be blamed, and the media backs him up.

    The other problem is for the black American population, they have been used by the democrats. All it takes is to study history as recently as the 1950s. This is a good article, published in the WSJ in 2008.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856786326834083.html

    Slavery is a blight on the history of our great country, but the Democratic Party played a big role in keeping things in place to suite them long after it ended. They still do today. I have never understood why they have never been held responsible and black Americans continue to support them.

  49. Linda Vaughn says:

    Well stated and written. Obama constantly and consistently questions the American people’s intelligence.

Leave a Reply